Irony of the evolutionary belief

[John53]

Wow. Now all she has to do is manufacture a bell.

She's evolved to the point where manual labour is not required. She got me to buy her a bell.

 

[Valjean]

I doubt this will land either but will make one last attempt to communicate with you.

My primary interest is relevant discourse and I've always valued learning above all else. But most don't want discourse. They want to teach. When they see ignorance, religion, or heresy they assume it's caused by a lack of knowledge and launch straight into lectures. They don't care if their own words are relevant to the argument because they see no argument with the ignorant. They use strawmen, hand waving, semantics, and gospel to ignore what the ignorant are saying and then try to enlighten them.

We point out real errors in your facts or reasoning.

Almost nothing being said to the ignorant is relevant to our arguments. We are being read Gospel According to Peers for the main part.

Again -- what the heck is a peer?

Portuguese Peer of the Realm.

The irony is believers in science simply can't see other ways of ordering reality, thinking, or assumptions. There is one true light and that is the scientific method after being peer reviewed.

We're open to examples or explanations, but you haven't provided any. Your ordering of reality is fantasy, presumption, and factually wrong, and it doesn't involve any thinking or facts.

If history is any guide I'll now be insulted and no word in this post will be addressed logically or with evidence. Go ahead and lecture me. Then when I show each part of your lecture is irrelevant I'll be ignored or get more insults.

If you do show our responses to be irrelevant it will be a first.

 

[Little Dragon]

If, according to evolutionists, human intelligence eventually emerged in an environment that was previously lifeless for millions and millions of years... what is so strange that a Superior Intelligence has already existed for another INFINITE number of years BEFORE that period of time?

There is just no need to invoke a Superior Intelligence to explain anything about the universe. Not that invoking one explains anything. It's strange that people feel the need to crowbar one in. I don't understand why really.

 

[Little Dragon]

The irony is believers in science simply can't see other ways of ordering reality, thinking, or assumptions.

You mean people who value testable evidence above fairy tales, are somehow, deficient?

 

[gnostic]

When we say "survival of the fittest," we are not talking about an animals physical prowess. We are referring to any traits which allow it to survive long enough to produce viable offspring.

Yes, IndigoChild5559

The problem is that “survival of the fittest” was an expression coined by Herbert Spencer after he had read Darwin’s On The Origin Of Species (1859), but people frequently mistakenly attributed this to Darwin. Spencer coined this phrase in his book Principles Of Biology (1864), but he reused this phrase also in his works in sociology and in anthropology, particularly the sociological philosophy that are associated with Social Darwinism.

Social Darwinism only applied to human societies, particularly with social, political and even economic issues, but this philosophy have been defunct and abandoned since the end of World War II, as pseudo-sociology.

The problem is that @cladking don’t understand this expression in “biology context”, but as the same description was used with “sociology context”. The meanings to survival of the fittest differed between biology usage and sociology usage, and people like cladking often misused the terminology/phrase by applying sociology context of “survival of the fittest” and concepts to evolutionary biology.

in any case, survival of the fittest isn’t even explanation of the biological mechanism, the evolutionary mechanism is Natural Selection.

 

[Little Dragon]

Transgender is being made possible, by man made goods and services, not found in nature.

Intersex and hermaphrodite humans and other animals, are found in nature.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism is not related to the theory of evolution. It is generally considered to be a pseudoscience, not science.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Intersex and hermaphrodite humans and other animals, are found in nature.

An intersexed individual is not the same as a transgender individual.

 

[Little Dragon]

Social Darwinism is not related to the theory of evolution. It is generally considered to be a pseudoscience, not science.

Yes, that was affirmed in the post.

 

[Little Dragon]

An intersexed individual is not the same as a transgender individual.

No such claim was made, but the difference is irrelevant, the point is, gender non conformity, has always been a thing.

 

[gnostic]

There is just no need to invoke a Superior Intelligence to explain anything about the universe. Not that invoking one explains anything. It's strange that people feel the need to crowbar one in. I don't understand why really.

the problem is that some people still insist on instilling superstitions to nature.

superstitions are not knowledge, they (superstitions) are just ignorance based on wishful thinking or primitive fear. Superstition is antithesis to knowledge.

You would in this day and age, superstitions would die out with knowledge that don’t require superstitious beliefs, and yet superstitions are kept alive by ignorant people.

 

[Little Dragon]

You would in this day and age, superstitions would die out with knowledge that don’t require superstitious beliefs, and yet superstitions are kept alive by ignorant people.

Indoctrination.

 

[gnostic]

Social Darwinism is not related to the theory of evolution. It is generally considered to be a pseudoscience, not science.

i agreed.

but @cladking is using the Social Darwinism version of “survival of the fittest”, and blaming Social Darwinism on both Charles Darwin and the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Little Dragon]

i agreed.

but @cladking is using the Social Darwinism version of “survival of the fittest”, and blaming Social Darwinism on both Charles Darwin and the Theory of Evolution.

A common tactic, used to bad mouth scientists. To demonize, as usual.

 

[gnostic]

Intersex and hermaphrodite humans and other animals, are found in nature.

yes, they are found in nature, but transgender isn’t natural occurrence, but a personal choice of each individual.

intersex is natural, as there are no choice when it does happens, as it is part of biology.

transgender is people being with sexual gender they were born with, but chooses to become the opposite sex for whatever motivate them. It is not really biological if you choose to surgically change his or her sex.

 

[gnostic]

Social Darwinism is not related to the theory of evolution. It is generally considered to be a pseudoscience, not science.

all true. I am not saying that they are related in any way.

but you must understand that Herbert Spencer used the expression survival of the fittest in both his sociology works and his biology works.

the frustrating part is people like cladking cannot grasp the sociological version to this expression don’t apply to the theory of evolution.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is no convincing evidence that life emerged without intelligence causing it to come about.

We don't need to be convinced that life wasn't intelligently designed. We'd need to be convinced that it was if it was. The existing evidence doesn't require an intelligent designer to explain. That doesn't make an intelligent designer impossible, but we know of no reason that nature couldn't accomplish abiogenesis and biological evolution without intelligent oversight, so there is no reason to assume any intelligence was involved.

We see living things assembling new life from non-living ingredients every time a cell grows and divides into two cells with no intelligent oversight. It happens automatically whenever possible. You can see nature doing this all by itself, so it's not much of a leap to consider that the first life could have assembled itself from those same ingredients according to the same laws of chemistry.

 

[YoursTrue]

One of the classic examples of Natural Selection was that of Peppered moths and their coloring. Originally these moths were light colored. During the Industrial Revolution, buildings and trees began to get coated with a layer of soot. The white moths resting on the darker backgrounds became very noticeable and easily picked off and eaten by predators. Then a random mutation happened in one moth, which caused it to be darker. This helped camouflage the moth and it survived to pass on that gene to its offspring. And so on and so on. Until pretty much Peppered Moths were almost all dark in color.

By the way, it is important that you learn the concept of punctuated equilibrium. Evolution does not happen at a steady rate.

Didn't they still stay moths?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Everybody on the planet knows what survival of the fittest means.

Except you. You don't even know what the assumptions of the theory of evolution are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Didn't they still stay moths?

Of course. Did you forget that you are still an ape?